When I was learning the principles of Git, I always thought the term "Pull Request" was a bit misnamed. Because I imagined it as "Pulling" the parent branch into you're branch rather than requesting to merge back into the parent branch. Is there a reason they didn't just call it a Merge Request?

I still get the feeling that her actions don't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. If you give a character agency, but there's not much effect, that leaves a bit of a hollow feeling behind.

If you detect somebody malicious active in your network, you can try to track the source of the connections. If the attackers have poor operational security ("opsec"), you might be able to gleam something about their identity

If the attackers are active over a long period of time, you can try to correlate their active hours with working hours in a time zone

If the attackers use tools (and all sophisticated attackers do), you can analyze the tools, and correlate it with known uses of similar tools. Also, analyzing the tools gives you an idea how sophisticated the attackers are

If the tools use undisclosed security holes ("zero-day exploits"), you might be able to find (much later) later who found these holes, and who bought them.

If the attackers steal information, you might be able to track where this information surfaces

Sometimes, intelligence services have been able to hack security cameras of attackers, and have observed people doing the attacks life. Basically the only bullet-proof attribution. Same with moles in the attacking organizations.

Sometimes, you can make guesses based on who benefited from an attack

If the attackers left a message, you might get insights from linguistic analyses.

Most of these attribution techniques only give hints, and wouldn't for example hold up as evidence in courts. But at least for private attackers, some of that might be enough to get you a search warrant, and hope to find some incriminating evidence during a physical search.

Sophisticated attacks aren't executed by a single person in a basement, but by a whole crew, often over several month.

The scale of such an operation means there needs to be somebody who finances and organizes the operation, often a nation state. Those organizing bodies tend to favor regular, normal work hours over working at 2am.

The Web server product was renamed to { short name => httpd, long name => HTTP server } when Apache became an organisation. You can qualify the product name with the organisation name, e.g. Apache HTTP server, but that does not mean that Apache is still the product name.

I have a lot of comments on this, so excuse the length -- I've already cut out some not-so-central arguments.

Signalling

One point that was nearly (but not quite) made during the episode was that marriage is, among other things, a form of signalling. You had a whole episode on that, right? :-)

So, marriage is a signal of commitment. To be an effective signal, it must be costly. Since I don't live in the US, I can't comment on all the crazy things going on with the US law wrt marriage, so that might well too a high a cost, as has been agreed upon at length in your discussion.

Raising kids tends to be a fairly large commitment, so I totally understand why some people (both men and women) want a pretty big signal of commitment from their partner before they agree to have kids.

What I hadn't realized before being married myself was the incredible convenience that the "married" signal provides during communication. There doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted short word for "committed to a relationship as much as marriage, without being actually married".

For instance, when I accompanied my girlfriend to a hospital in preparation for some surgery, the doctors seemed always unsure whether they should ask me to leave, even if I was there on my friend's behalf. When she introduced me as her husband a year time later (to different doctors), this uncertainty was gone.

Other Benefits

I'm mostly familiar with the German concept of marriage, not the US, so some
these might not apply generally. But, here are some benefits to marriage, besides those mentioned on the podcast:

If one of the partners is from a foreign country, they get an automatic

When a child is born, the husband automatically gets shared custody of the child. When the couple isn't married, extra paperwork is necessary

There are certain privileges for married couples when it comes to inheritance. Again in .de land, you can arrange for the partner to receive the vast majority of the deceased partner's assets, and inheritance to the next generation is delayed. This is typically done to not force a just widowed individual to sell a house, just to be able to pay out the heirs.

In some jurisdictions, marriage also grants an immigrant partner right of residence, and sometimes faster access to the citizenship (for example in Switzerland).

Equality

During the podcast, the point often came up that you could replace parts of the "marriage" concept with custom contract. But that is only available to those who are sufficiently savvy with legalese, or can afford a lawyer. Marriage is a big social equalizer, in that everyone can afford to marry.

Conclusions

I think marriage as a concept has its merits, and so far I don't regret being married :-)

I do agree with sentiment on the podcast that the US seems to have some pretty crazy rules when it comes to marriage, and I disagree with those. And yes, the effort of engaging in marriage should be more adequate, relative to effort it takes to disengage -- but it shouldn't be financial effort, otherwise it becomes a privilege for the rich.

I can only encourage you to look at how other societies implement marriage; I think you will find some that Eneasz finds less horrible than the US model.

I really hope that subroutine signatures will work out fine, so far it's looking good. That's also one of the must-haves.

Other things where Perl 5 really needs to improve:

The string/bytes distinction. There is simply way too much that can go wrong here at the moment, with accidental concatenation of strings and bytes leading to encoding messes all over

A good syntax for classes and attribute, in core. Yes, "in core" matters, otherwise your project ends up using Moose, Mojo::Object, Mo and Moo all in the same process (brought in through different dependencies), and that simply isn't a productive state, nor good for teaching and marketing

a better concurrency story (yes, that's something where Perl 6 really does do better)

On the meta level, I get the impression that Perl 5 lacks a coherent vision and steering in the language development process. But, not being subscribed to p5p, that might not be the case, and it simply isn't communicated to the outside well enough for me to pick it up.

Glad to hear about the alias.
Hopefully Perl 5 porters will use it as a chance to release most recent Perl 5 as Perl 7 with best 'modern perl' modules added into the core so the community can market it as a new page.

I don't think p5p will start to include lots of modules into "core". Heck, some Linux distributions (like RedHat, iirc) don't even ship all core modules if you just install "perl"

If you want a Perl with a good choice of modules, your best chance is to create a distribution, much like Strawberry Perl comes with perl, some modules, and a module installer.

As for the bumping the major version number: that should be a well-discussed strategic move, not something you do on a whim. You should have a good story about what that new major version offered that the old one didn't, and if it's meant to be backwards compatible, some very good handling and explanation around "use v7" and "use v5" working, but not "use v6".

Catch up on your sleep, then read it again, with a bit of the suspense removed. There is a TON if foreshadowing, references, and other stuff you probably missed on your bleary-eyed read through!

Also, if you think you'd become a dark wizard and that is concerning enough to you to merit a mention, maybe your utility function needs tweaking a bit. There's no magic in the real world, but everyone gradually accumulates some amount of wealth, influence, and power in life. Precommit your future self to use it in a way that would make your present self proud.

When you know not to use the language to solve certain problems, even if you love the language.

Just a random observation on the side: when people start to learn their first few languages, they often look for language features to help them, when simple libraries or loops or whatever would do. This is probably due to the way tutorials and books are structured: introduce a problem, and then a language feature that solves this problem.

The difficulty with this project is to explain it, because there aren't many tools with the same scope to compare it to. If you're familiar with BOSH it's a lot like that, except less opinionated and more suitable for tech of today. The quickstart should also explain the how a bit more: https://escape.ankyra.io/docs/escape-installation/.

Anyways, we've just launched and are still improving the documentation so please bear with us! We'll try to add a "how does it work" page soon. Thanks for the feedback!

Sorry for the delay; didn't think yes/no answers would be very useful, but hopefully this answers some questions:

At the moment there are two parts to it. There's the Escape Inventory which is an artefact store; used for storing and retrieving packages and answering questions like: what will be the next version if I would release another package? (ie. auto-versioning) The Inventory is a server process that can be run locally or somewhere else to enable teamwork.

Then there is the Escape command line tool. It is used for building packages, pushing and pulling from the inventory, deploying to environments, running operational tasks, etc. What makes it different from other tools is that Escape gives you a way to explicitly state what configuration is needed and produced for each package, and it then allows you to compose packages into complete platforms. You call other tools to do the actual build and deployment work, but Escape does all the book-keeping of what's where and how it's configured -- and then it goes from there.

The command line tool can run without the Inventory, if dependencies are on disk and auto-versioning isn't used, but it's very easy to plug in to CI and CD systems when it does. At the moment is doesn't model pipelines itself, but this is something we'd like to address when we've got the right building blocks in place.

Hope that cleared some things up, but let me know if you have any more questions and I'd be happy to discuss them.

What about the effect of distance and gravity on the passage of observed time? All of the answers so far ignore distance between relative observers as well as the effect of gravity on the passage of time.

My bet is that there will eventually be a quantum based answer to this question. In General and Special Relativity, I don't know I'd we have a specific answer to this question.

Time dilation through gravity is pretty minuscule for all human-made spacecrafts, as is time dilation through relative motion, because they are all pretty slow (much lower than 0.1c).

What is relevant is the distance to earth, for example at the time of writing, light between earth and the voyager probes travels more than 19 hrs 32min and 16 hrs 06 min, respectively. So if you send a "transmit data back in 80 hours" command, you must be aware of the frame of reference it is executed in.

Note that this long delay in communication makes it impossible to use the standard protocols that we use for the Internet, like TCP and IP. Those are designed with sub-second round-trip times in mind, and tend to have timeouts in the range of fractional or one-digit minutes.